Posted
by
timothy
on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:01AM
from the I-certainly-want-one dept.

On Friday, we mentioned that Defense Distributed had created a (near-enough-to) fully 3-D printed pistol. Sparrowvsrevolution now writes that "Last week, the Liberator was fired for the first time at a firing range and successfully shot a .380 caliber bullet using a remote firing setup. Over the weekend, Defense Distributed's founder, the anarchist and radical libertarian Cody Wilson, was bold enough to try firing it by hand. The results of that test, witnessed by a reporter, indicate that the era of the 3D-printed firearm may be upon us, for better or for worse." Predictably, certain politicians are — so to speak — up in arms about it.

Predictably, certain politicians are â" so to speak â" up in arms about it.

Considering how often these gun bills have come up, and then gone flaccid, it's going to take some industrial-strength Viagra to get gun control advocates to mount a campaign to put to bed any criticism and pass the climax of votes necessary for it to become a law.

Bad ammo causes weapon damage as well. And plenty of people build their own guns: you can build an AK-format rifle cheaper than buying one, although it DOES take some fairly common shop tools. . ..So the "public health" issue is a straw-man argument. If you really wanted to, you could build a simple single-shot pistol or shotgun with hand tools and perhaps $10-20 of common parts available in any store that sells plumbing supplies. . .

Bad ammo causes weapon damage as well. And plenty of people build their own guns: you can build an AK-format rifle cheaper than buying one, although it DOES take some fairly common shop tools. . ..So the "public health" issue is a straw-man argument. If you really wanted to, you could build a simple single-shot pistol or shotgun with hand tools and perhaps $10-20 of common parts available in any store that sells plumbing supplies. ..

Reliability is another issue that will keep printed guns from being used by all but the most technophilliac gun nuts. In one of the tests there was a misfire when the firing pin failed to hit the cartridge's primer cap.

Real gun lovers want reliable guns that fire when needed. All 3d printed guns will do is cause more gun bans to come up in Congress, greatly increasing the statistical odds of one of them passing. If you enjoy your right to bear arms you should adamantly speak out against this reckless self-endangerment that is just begging to be criminalized, dragging the second amendment with it.

The real challenge to gun enthusiasts is steady supply of reliable ammunition. There are only so many primers and reusable casings out there, and good quality lead forging is pretty challenging. This is really the core of why 3d gun printing is so puzzling. there are already so many guns in the US that even if all manufacturers were forced out of existence (amazingly unlikely) and government-sponsored gun roundups were started (another layer of near-impossibility) there are still enough guns to arm tens of millions of "rebels" to support the inevitable uprising.

Plastic printed guns are a public health issue. In the actual test-firing using a rifle cartridge caused the handgun to explode. Why should I have my health insurance premiums jacked up to offset the insurance companies looses due to paying out on some moron that blew his hand off?

The same reason you are paying higher premiums because of obesity and smokers. You all voted for the democrats, you all wanted this "were all in it together" mentality. Now you get to pay for it.

I have no idea how you voted, but if you don't like paying for others {stupidity|laziness|ignorance} whatever... Start voting outside the 2 party paradigm and stop with the "that's throwing your vote away". Because that is only true when you buy into that mentality and keep it alive.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

Which is an amusing thought: the shop tools required to build, for example, an AK rifle from a de-milled parts kit and a 20-dollar flat are cheaper than buying a 3-D printer. And printer filament isn't cheap either: I would wager that you could purchase everything you need to build an AK-format rifle, **including tooling**, for less than many 3D printers. And that's buying NEW tools. . .

This isn't about guns, this is about speech (the ability to communicate this design or download the design from the internet). So Congress shouldn't have any problem passing a law. All that they would need is someone to explain that you could design a pressure cooker with it.

It is a state right not a federal one. Just like drivers licenses , you can't really regulate it at the federal level. Therefore federal laws are mostly worthless.

and Like pirates with DRM most gun laws only hurt and hinder those who lawfully own the guns. Like the shooting in Newton. The guns were legally locked up and stored. The insane son killed his own mother and then stole her guns. Now gun law would have stopped that.

Try to legalize drugs and killing and see if the number of occurrences go up or down.

It has been tried with drugs in a couple of European countries. Hard drug (Cocaine, Heroin) use has decreased in all cases I know of (Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands). It has also been tried locally in a couple of European cities with the same effect. The results for soft drugs are inconclusive. What is your point?

Worst. Thinking. Ever. "Current laws aren't 100% effective, so let's not bother with them anymore." This suggests you don't support any law against anything, ever, because it might not be 100% effective. I'm hoping that's not the case, and if it is, may your wish come true and your neighbor shoot you and take your stuff, because laws aren't going to stop him anyway. Beyond that fatal flaw in this silly argument, your comparison is drugs. Certain key differences between the drug and gun markets make it an absurd comparison. Without going into far too much detail, the big difference is that guns start off being sold legally before they hit the streets. I don't mean guns legally purchased are stolen, I mean the laws are so lax that criminals have numerous ways to get them through legal channels. They'll either have someone else purchase the gun for them, or see a corrupt gun dealer to buy them off him. What's important about this? Their means for acquiring guns is still based entirely on the LEGAL AVAILABILITY of them. If they weren't so easily available, there wouldn't be so many on the street. I find it disturbing that so many people gloss over this basic piece of logic. Guns are only so available to criminals because it's so easy so get them legally. Now, I'm not for taking everyone's guns away as NRA nuts seem to think everyone opposed to them is, but I do see a dire need for reform, and polls suggest that almost all of America agrees. The problem is while we're all saying, "Just let us run better background checks and get rid of huge loopholes people use to avoid them!" there's a small percentage of people shouting back "You can't have our freedom! The constitution says we can have guns!" and it's making it impossible to come to an agreement.

if guns were banned, there would have been no guns to steal and kill his mother with. so gun laws would have stopped it.

That implies that because laws banning drugs aren't 100% effective then there the's no point in making laws to restrict gun use. Therefore Thruen has made a valid argument. I think you need to look up straw-man arguments, because you made one then accused someone else of doing it.

As to winning debates - facts seem to be far too rarely considered in moderation or "winning" debates on Slashdot.

While that may be true, you cited the Cato institution, Fox News, something called "gunssavelives.net," the WJS opinion page, opinion pieces in the Boston Globe, The Telegraph, and The Washington Examiner, something called "americanthinker.com," a weasel-worded gallop poll, and an article from the Hill that is quoting the the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointing out that a couple of democrats in Montana and South Dakota aren't toeing the gun-control line. These a

Indeed I do. You pulled out that old canard that people shot dead are more dead* than people beaten to death with cricket bats, wrenches, or tire irons, or stabbed to death. You try to divert the question from dead bodies to one of "dead bodies with a bullet in them." Not going to work I'm afraid. Now, watch this. Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US. Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates. This is an interesting general article.

Some of the articles I listed address the very interesting question of avoiding being killed to begin with by means of effective self-defense. Did you know that even old men, women, and the infirm have used firearms to protect themselves against thugs, and gangs? When you deny them the right to arm themselves they become victims. Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.

Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates.

Yes. Greenland. A country where most people own a firearm. Also Estonia and Lithuania. Poor countries.

All other european countries, even countries who where in civil war a few years ago have murder rates a factor of 2 to 8 lower than the US.http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html [unodc.org] The link you posted ranks the US, one of the richest nations in the world, at place 103 of 180 countries in murder rate. Something you can be proud of!Virtually all countries at comparable development to US hav

Indeed. Also, re: 1), my right to defend myself does not require the permission or even recognition of any other person, governing body, or law enforcement. It comes from the fact that I am human. Further:

(2). you give examples of older people using guns to defend themselves... but you're missing the point that they still needed to do that, so the guns DID NOT PREVENT crimes being at least attempted,

The presence or absence of guns will not change human nature. People will try to kill people, with pointy st

"Gun crime" is down. That is not the same as "all crime". You can be beaten to death by somebody who's completely unarmed. Is it really that comforting to know somebody was murdered without a gun instead of with a gun? What nonsense. Hell, if I were picking methods to be murdered by, I'd rather be shot. It's faster and less painful on average than having the shit beat out of you. But yeah, keep singing yourself lullabies about "gun crime" because guns are so important, maybe it will calm you down as you bleed out after some punk shanks you in some dark alley.

The newspaper article links to their source [heuni.fi]. Their headline is embarrassingly misleading for what's supposed to be a serious newspaper.

The homicide rate is higher in the USA, the rape rate is higher, the major assault rate is higher, the car theft rate is higher.

In England and Wales the burglary rate and non-major assault rates are higher.

Is it really that comforting to know somebody was murdered without a gun instead of with a gun?

Yes. Knives and sticks are less dangerous: it's far easier to run away, and much clearer what the criminal is intending to do (it takes more movement on their part). It's also very difficult to accidentally kill bystanders.

People who want to ban or control guns, by definition, do not use logic. I got the statstics from the Australian web site myself. Even adjusting for population growth, violent crime went up by about 40% in the 10 years after their great gun grab. Murders did go down a little, but for every single life saved, over 600 additional people were either assaulted or sexually assaulted. That is what gun control actually does, yet nobody who WANTS gun control actually bothers to study the numbers. Links to the spreadsheet with numbers and links to the sources are HERE [harrelsonfamily.org].

I also love the concern over "gun violence" -- as if having somebody stabbed to death is no big deal. Shouldn't people worry about violence in genera instead if focusing on one particular tool? A person stabbed to death is just as dead as a person shot to death.

We also tried "assault weapon" bans (what an arbitrary list) and bans on larger magazines. Effect on crime? Approximately zero. Clearly, that worked so well, we have to bring it back again.

My absolute favorite is that there are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US (give or take). 2011 reported 11,101 gun homicides. That means that the gun grabbers want to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to try to stop the 0.0037% of guns that cause the problem.

To put it another way, approximately 45% of households own guns. Assuming a uniform distribution of family sizes across gun-owning and defenseless households, that means that 140,200,000 people are in a household with guns (US population in 2011 is 311,591,917). The government wants to infringe on the rights of over 300 million people to stop 11,101 criminals (assuming one criminal per murder). That means that they are passing laws in order to try to stop the 0.008% of gun owners that do bad things. To put it another way, for every single criminal that these laws try to stop, there are 12,630 honest gun owners who will be collateral damage as a result of these laws.

Tyranny is a small price for safety. But we still have a long way to go to eradicate all the things that bad people can use to hurt and kill good people. I mean, they haven't even collected all the guns and pressure cookers. It's will be a long time before they get around to all the sharp and jagged rocks.

You're right, I don't own a gun and I support our rights to own guns. I see the minority, those that want to remove the 2nd Amendment, trying to shout and scream things like "think of the children" in order to do this. Thankfully the minority has yet to manage it.

Stronger background checks? Go for it. Assault weapons ban? Get a clue, no way. When the cosmetics are what's used to make decisions common sense has left the auditorium. Magazine limits? Seriously? Our reps don't even realize that magazines themselves can be reloaded let alone that it's possible to swap magazines and continue firing. Printable magazines are also available BTW although I'm told that this is actually a difficult thing to do correctly, something to do with the spring. More people are killed by automobiles in this country and yet we focus on guns. That's okay though as our cars are already so fat it's disgusting as they strive to swaddle us ever more in protective devices. I'm betting more than one person in Boston is a new gun owner after the fallout from the Marathon bombings and I don't blame them. If a manhunt in an urban neighborhood wasn't a wake up call I don't know what is.

BTW, unless you've got some sort of special machine that detects "wrong people" guns will always end up being wielded by them, checks cannot screen them all out. Any competent machine shop can build a damned gun and plans to do so aren't hard to find. The problem is so many people are freaked out by the news and screaming Chicken Little's that it's the "right people" who're going to end up being restricted. It's common sense that if someone is going to break the law that "yet another damned gun law" isn't going to even slow them down. Guns are so easy to get that the Boston bomber twits had a whole arsenal! Oh wait no they didn't...

You say this but meanwhile in other countries teens are being shaken down by cops to make sure they aren't carrying screwdrivers and people talk about making kitchen knives that cannot be used to stab someone and do it with a straight face.

I apologize to you and Pecisk. Both of you have been Mod down in error by people who don't know how to use the points given them. Comments aren't to be marked down based on the Mods opinion. Time should be spend with focus on marking good comments up and adjusting comments modded in error. It's a sad state of affairs they had to mod based on their hurt feelings.

To be honest I wouldn't have modded either one of you up, but Troll and Flamebait shows the intentions of said Mod. I apologize for not having Mod p

You should check out DC v. Heller [wikipedia.org] where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago [wikipedia.org] where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.

The 2nd Amendment was for the protection of society. That meant from foreign, domestic and criminal. But if you study the documents and statements at the time, it is clear that the authors felt the number one threat the potential threat of one's own government. Considering they had just suffered greatly at the hands of their own government.

Actually, the NRA was not about hunters. It was due to the fact that after the Civil War, it was noted that northerners were far less adept marksman than southerners. Largely due to the fact that hunting in much of the north had diminished with the advent of industry. Where as it was still common in the south.

The NRA was established to help ensure that Americans were well equipped skill wise to be able to respond to a call for defense if neded.

"a well regulated militia",

Did NOT mean regulations like today. It meant disciplined and capable.

"They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia"And DHS placing an order for 1.5 billion rounds over 5 years isn't fueling it either? That's about 3x the rounds per person the military is using. And our military is in an active state of war. Just something to consider.

"The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future."

The NRA is a sportsmen's organization that advocates for the rights of hunters. Historically the NRA has been for gun control, having helped draft the ban on fully automatic weapons in the 1980's.

I will be charitable, and assume you are misinformed. Otherwise, you're either talking out of your ass, or just plain knowingly lying.

The NRA was incorporated after the end of the Civil War by former Union general officers to improve the general level of marksmanship among the population--because, as Ambrose Burnside put it, "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." It's mission is TRAINING the same and effective use of firearms. Hunting had exactly nothing to do with the purpose of the organization--though, of course, the NRA DOES support hunting, since it is one of the shooting sports.

As for your comment about the 1986 ban on machine guns, the NRA most certainly did NOT help draft that legislation. The ban was attached to legislation that the NRA DID help draft, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which undid some of the worst parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After the amendment was adopted, the thinking was that the ban on machine guns, while not desirable, was worth getting the rest of the bill enacted into law.

How the hell did this pile of garbage get modded as "informative"? Let's examine the bullshit, shall we?

The guys who wrote the Second Amendment were very clear in their other writings that it was about letting communities (not states, and certainly not the feds) organize their own militias. In 1789, there were no national guard units. Regardless of the introductory phrase, the second part is pretty clear that no government, at any level, can restrict the rights of the people to own or carry firearms. No taxes, no bans, no magazine restrictions, nothing. Additionally, since the main body of the Constitution explicitly defines the finite powers that the states and people grant to the federal government, and none of those powers mention the ability to restrict firearms ownership, there is no such power to begin with.

The NRA is not a sportsmen's association. A handful of Union Civil War veterans founded the NRA, because they realized that the Union soldiers were horrible shots compared to their Confederate counterparts. They founded the NRA to improve the general firearms skills of the population, in preparation for defensive readiness.

I've purchased three firearms so far this year. They were all about the same price as a year ago. Ammo is definitely up though. Part of this is civilians buying up civilian production, but a bigger piece is the government buying up hundreds of millions of rounds. Additionally, commodity prices are up. Ammunition is mostly processed metals, so when the metal gets expensive, so does the ammo. Also, given the depression that is now finally kicking in (notice the world-wide drop in commodities last month, and the increasing number of bank panics) will probably not be over in 2016, because government idiots will try to legislate it away, which will only worsen it, I doubt a democrat will get elected in 2016. That would be almost as bad as electing a Republican.

Now I'm sure you have a source for your claim that over 50% of these firearms will end up stolen (perhaps your ass?), but the number of stolen firearms in the US is actually pretty low. As is our crime rate, including our gun crime rate. Yes other countries have an even lower rate, but if you take out the drug smuggling related crimes, our murder rate is pretty low.

"Security" isn't limited to foreign conquerors; it applies to anything that would threaten the state, foreign or domestic. This includes one's own government, should it become necessary. The Declaration of Independence and the American War of Independence should be all the proof you need that the founders thought it was important to be able to cast off an oppressive government.

The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future.

The way I see this going is at some point someone will print a gun. There will be a defect and the gun will blow up in their hands. Then there will be reason to ban plastic guns. Then because all 3D printers are "used" for is printing guns they'll be the next thing to get banned.

I say "used" because since using 3D printers to print guns has become such a high profile story most of the ignorant population will just assume that's all 3D printers are for. Kind of like how Torrents are "only" used for piracy

While 3D printing looks cool and interesting in general, this is really far fetched. You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

And no, you can't really use this are argument against gun control laws.

The funny part is, the troll are going to run wild today over the site, because all the mod points are going to be used on this particular article to bounce posts up or down, till they are entirely depleted.Good luck with that, let me know how it all turns out for you.

use a plastic pipe then. it's just a single shot anyways and shotgun shells(with plastic pellets) are more likely to get through security than bullets.

thing is the guy behind this likes to act all the time like this is the first time someone can build a gun at home and how that will change civilization. it's all bullshit, he should just treat it as a technical challenge, not something that's going to change civilization by bringing power to change the world to everyone and not just governments (really, he's

Yeah, hide them in a belt buckle or behind your cufflinks. A metal signal with the wand gets a visual check that verifies there is metal that looks expected. I can think of 100 ways to get bullets past the worthless security we have today. Only a change to zero-metal policy would defeat them, and that would result in severe problems for the travel industry.

It's perhaps a commentary on the state of craftworking skills in the U.S. that making a rudimentary, one-shot gun is now considered too high-skilled for a regular person to do. The level of skill and equipment needed is basically at the level of a 1950s high-school metalworking class.

Oh, I don't think it'll just be in the U.S. The internet kinda does away with borders or at least has less stopping power than our borders ( which is one of the jobs our government IS responsible to protect, above even the phony power they've given themselves) I'm sure you will find easy ways to download the file to print one EVERYWHERE.I bet China couldn't keep it out.

Gun related crimes are not being done using legally held weapons. You're no better off with a printed gun than you are with a black market S&W. In one case you leave traces of your presence in the black market, in the other you leave traces of downloading the schematics from the internet. In the long run owning a 3D printer and gun schematics will be equal to having the means to murder someone. If your average Joe Blow has an opportunity and a motive on top of that, he'd still get busted.

While 3D printing looks cool and interesting in general, this is really far fetched. You already can make assassination weapons from schematics from Internet - if you have skills and good understanding of physics involved.

And no, you can't really use this are argument against gun control laws.

An understanding of physics you say... we'll need to look into the school system to ensure a safer America for all.

Don't care if OP likes Mr. Wilson or not, but spreading false information is simply childish. Cody Wilson is not an "anarchist". He is a CRYPTO-ANARCHIST. There is a tremendous difference. I would have thought the/. crowd would know the difference, but I guess ignorance knows no boundaries.

Then it wouldn't be "fully 3-d printed then", would it, you fuckwit. Nor would it get through airport security, imbecile.

well this isn't 3d printed fully either nimbusdubulus. the pin and bullet are metal, and I'd place much more emphasis on being able to build cheaply and easily rather than at "omg fully 3d printed with a 8 thousand dollar stratasys printer". at stratasys material pricing(unless you hack the cartridges) the metal pipe would be cheaper too!

not that hard to get a metal pipe through security either! 70% of luggage has some. and what the fuck is it with dumbwits assuming that the intended use is to fool TSA to l

The law says that its not illegal to produce a gun at home. People have been making guns at home for years.Why is it suddenly a problem that someone can 3D print a gun instead of making one out of a block of metal with machine tools?

because when the price of the 3D printers will drop, and the guns CAD models become available anywhere on the Net, the first retarded person will be able to make one in no time and play with it in his closest mall or school.

Doing out of metal would be ok, it is the creation of a gun that is not detectable which is against the law. They get around this by adding a block of metal, besides the firing pin, which makes it legal.

From the video, looks like despite the modest cartridge used, there's quite a kick. Guess the plastic is rather light.So, no need to get excited folks; a one-shot weapon with really poor accuracy, which needs a 3D printer.Thus more difficult and costly to produce, yet no more effective, than a 'saturday night special', 'zip gun' or 'bang stick', plans for which have been freely available for a long time.Probably equally as likely to blow up in your face, too...

However, since the single-shot weapon is already quite bulky, (OK, they could make the pistol grip smaller, but I guess the barrel has to be that big to resist the pressure), a multiple barrel weapon would be hard to conceal. Making an 'automatic' version, which could be both more deadly and compact, is probably out of reach for printable plastics - just too much stress on the components.

Again, I agree with your comment - but at the same time, imagine if three years ago, someone told you that in three years time, a chap could use a 3D printer to print an entire gun (ok, in this case short a firing pin) from plastic and that it would actually work. Yes, right now, it might be rather hard to imagine how on earth we might be able to have rounds that don't contain metal - but hey, there is nothing but time working against us here is there?

I'm gonna have to stop you right there. The total number of fucks I give about anything Greenberg has to say is now exactly zero. I don't know who you're pandering to with such blatant manipulation, but I'm not sure the people who would fall for it are literate anyway.

This is a repost. I first put this up when the previous article about printed guns went up, and I was modded down to minus one million, which was no big surprise. Gun nuts live in a fantasy universe where they are John Wayne, and the bad guys wear black hats and are always destroyed by the guy in the white hat (i.e the gun owner). If you even hint that there are negative consequences from guns, they scream like you are trying to remove their dicks. So I post this again, and I expect the same mod down and moronic replies.

Sill, I would like one pro gun person to admit that a printed gun will kill somebody, and not just some drug dealing child molesting scum, but a real live human being who didn't deserve to die. Like a kid who thinks that it's a toy. So man up for once, and admit that guns kill people. Just face the truth once, and stop complaining that I'm a "stupid liberul", or that you have a constitutional right to own a gun. That's not relevant. Dead people are relevant. So if you have a shred of integrity, stop dodging the question. Who will be the first person to be murdered by a printed gun? And all the other examples that follow:

When will the first murder occur with a printed gun?

When will the first accidental shooting occur with a printed gun?

When will the first child be killed with a printed gun?

When will the first suicide occur with a printed gun?

When will the first robbery occur with a printed gun?

When will the first car jacking occur with a printed gun?

When will the first plane hijack attempt occur with a printed gun?

These are the real world events that no-one in the pro-gun world is willing to acknowledge. It's not a case of if these will happen, but when.

Try is the keyword. The whole point of what this guy is doing is to show the futility of trying to stop it. Sure people will probably die but how can it be stopped? You can't stop home made guns anymore than you can stop pressure cookers filled with fireworks.

And your comment is typical of those who fail to grasp the negative consequences of trying and failing to make the world a safe utopia. Medical testing is a great example. If I'm dying of a terminal disease I want to be able to take experimental d

In the Forbes article, other than "a single nail that is used as a firing pin", the gun also includes another nonprintable part. The group, the article says, added a six-ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the undetectable firearms act. The act, Congressman Steve Israel says, is set to expire at the end of the year. "The very least we should do, as a matter of common sense, is extend the undetectable firearms act so that a plastic gun or component can't be brought onto planes because a metal detector can't detect them," notes Israel.

I could never understand why people have no problem with a law that categorically bans ALL guns that are made from non-ferrous materials, and/or that do not look like a gun by X-Ray, but run around like crazy people talking about armed citizens overthrowing the government over limitations on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines--or f***ing background checks. The only way a citizens group would ever have a chance at affecting change in government with guns would be by assassinating a politician--you have no chance against the military or police, sorry. And the Undetectable Firearms Act was written pretty much with that problem in mind (and, obviously other public places like airports.) Why then aren't people pooping their pants over this clear restriction to the supposed core principle of the Second Amendment?

Seriously, where are the protests and demonstrations against the banning of plastic guns 25 years ago? Where were all the threats to vote politicians out of office for violating their constitutional rights? If the answer to the theater shooting in Aurora was that movie-goers should have been carrying guns, and the answer to school shootings is armed teachers, then why not airplanes? Wouldn't we all feel safer if everyone in an airplane was carrying an undetectable plastic gun? I mean, what can box cutters do against bullets? This cognitive dissonance (and the total capitulation of the trampling of the rest of the Bill of Rights) perplexes me.

These things have been around forever (image google it). The predecessors usually lasted for more than one or two shots however. But they have been fashioned from every imaginable material. The only reason this is going to gain any legislation traction will be due to A) frenzied knee-jerk reactionaries running amok screaming "Think of the children!" B) Politicians proxying legislation from corporations with an agenda in one direction or the other. It's stupid to give this thing much more attention than slapping a "21 only" label on it. Anything else will be a waste of time, money and energy.

I know the anti gun people aren't going stop. That's fine. Neither will we stop.

I am not a violent person. I don't believe in using violence as anything but a means of defense. Truly.

That said, I few my right to own a gun as the same thing as my right to vote. Literally the same. And I feel the same way about both.

Imagine if someone came to take away your right to vote? Would it matter what reasons they came up for it... what excuses? Unlikely. That is where I am on the issue. And I'm not alone for what that is worth. I don't think most of us are violent or desire violence. We simply believe we're entitled to be dangerous. I'm free. I'm a citizen. You should fear me. Not because I'm crazy. But because the free are powerful.

This gun... this technology... It made me cry the first time I saw it. To me, its beautiful. And I will protect it. This is a flame that will not go out.

I regret if this offends anyone. That is not my desire. I see in this a weapon that might one day free the world. Naive? Perhaps... but possibly this is the beginning of something glorious.

Dude; have you not been following the last 30 years of elections? When was the last time *anyone* running for an office actually represented *you*?

Campaigns now cost millions of dollars, even for local elections. The only people that can run are people with "connections" to money, meaning they are already friends of the elite, and therefore, represent the elite. They are not interested in, nor do they represent the common people.

And never mind big, federal elections, We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars needed. The bar has been raised so high that no common man can ever run for a Congressional Office.

So really, what's your "vote" doing for you? You can vote for representative (D), who represents the elite, or representative (R), who represents the elite. Neither choice is for you. So your vote has already been taken away -- they just didn't take it away in a form you recognize!!

I'm sorry to say that the real world isn't like the movies. It doesn't take a stormtrooper in a black uniform to take away your rights, it can be done in a much more subtle way, in a way you'll end up going along with, and NOT rebelling against.

And in fact, you'll end up working *for* the oppression of other people's rights. And all the time, your guns will sit idle, because you trust your government while they continue to screw you.

You don't need a 3d printer to make molds. Making molds would nullify the advantage of using a 3d printer: simplicity.

Unless, of course, somebody invents a 3d printer that can automate the entire process.

Don't rule it out completely. Using a 3d printer to make a mold of something I downloaded is within the reach of my finances and ability, while making a mold from other means might not be. That doesn't really help me make a gun though, as i'd need to inject my mold with metal so it would need to withstand high temperatures, and such a printer is maybe not within my reach.

You could print out the appropriate patterns to make a mold out of though, and the rest of the casting process is also simple enough

Personally, I'd be just as worried, if not more so, firing a cast iron gun than a 3D printed gun. Both are potential pipe bombs. So are all firearms, but most have been tested to a fault many times over to see what they can take, so you fire it within a known tolerance.

It's actually not a crime to print a gun (or otherwise manufacture one for personal use), which is why this guy did so openly and was not arrested.

You are totally correct, however, I dare say that given how much of a game-changer this is in terms of policing weapons, and how politicians hate being caught with their pants down without a law that has already been passed, your statement will be out-dated in 3... 2.... There...

unfortunately the dickheads that derive their bravery from behind a gun don't understand common sense. These are the same dick heads that start a fight over being "dis-respected" because they don't understand what respect is.

Both Anarchist and Libertarian are very old terms, it is only recently that the term "Libertarian" has been (in the US at least, not so much in the rest of the world with the exception of a few kids spending too much time in online forums abound with conspiracy nuts) associated with what are essentially Anarcho-capitalists.